I am an entrepreneur and communications expert from Salt Lake City and founder of SnappConner PR. I am the author of Beyond PR: Communicate Like A Champ The Digital Age, available on Amazon. I am also a frequent author and speaker on communication and am co-creator of the Content University program for executives. The opinions I express (especially when tongue in cheek) are entirely my own. My newsletter is the Snappington Post, available at http://bit.ly/1iv67Wk

Risky Business: How To Blow The Whistle (And Still Protect Your Job)

Which is more valuable to your company’s culture—a strong ethics policy or a whistleblower policy? A reader pitched me this week on covering this topic and pointed to an article contrasting the two policies here.

The answer: both are important. A strong company culture, coupled with a good ethics policy, can make great strides towards reducing integrity breaches. Yet some infractions will invariably still occur. This is where a whistle blowing program or process is vital for making it safe for employees to come forward with what they know without risk of retaliation or damage to their career.

Which leads to another question that my friend Dr. David Gruder, integrity expert, agreed to lend his hand in addressing this week. When it’s necessary to blow the whistle on bad organizational behavior, what’s the best way to proceed? Are you seeing something in your company that shouldn’t be happening but it appears that no one is doing anything about it? Do you feel like someone needs to speak up and it looks like it’s got to be you? Maybe you’re right, but maybe you’re not, Gruder says. “Whistle blowing is serious business,” he maintains. “It’s not for the uninformed, the faint of heart, or the unskilled. In other words, ‘Don’t try this at home, kids.’ At least not without a road map.”

In Gruder’s experience he’s seen whistle blowing blow up for the informer despite the best of intentions simply because the whistle-blower didn’t know how to handle the process well. But there are ways to minimize the risk that whistle-blowing will backfire, he says, once you know how to plan and implement, and how to minimize the chances of sliding down the dangerous chutes.

Dr. David Gruder is an author, speaker, and an authority on integrity.

Gruder offers up the following six steps for determining whether you ought to speak up, and for doing it well if you decide to proceed.

Step 1. The “Why” of Whistle Blowing: Check Your Motives

Pick Your Battles: First assess how important it is you move forward. How high are the stakes if the issue doesn’t get addressed? (You might need to consult with well-selected others to get clarity on this point before deciding, he says.)

Check Your Motives: If you conclude that the stakes are indeed high, check your motives to be sure you aren’t choosing to act as the result of hidden agendas. For example, are you relishing the thought of being the hero, proving you’re indispensable, wanting to be noticed, wanting to be validated, wanting revenge, wanting to teach someone a lesson? Or are you perhaps wanting to set the company up to fire you because you don’t have the guts to quit, when that’s secretly what you wanted to do? Also be honest with yourself about whether your whistle blowing is actually about wanting someone else to do your dirty work when the issue is one you should actually deal with directly, but you don’t know how to do it effectively or don’t want to have to rise to the challenge yourself.

Step 2. The “When”: Timing Counts

Your Place in the Drama: When it’s truly not your place to have a direct conversation with the offending person or to directly intervene with the situation yourself, you might need to consider becoming a whistle blower, assuming that your “why” motive is pure (see Step 1).

Timing: When the issue won’t work itself out soon enough to prevent major damage from occurring unless you speak up, you might need to consider becoming a whistle blower.

Training: When you aren’t able to ensure that someone with the right expertise provides training (consciousness-raising, skills development or procedure creation, etc.) related to the theme of the offense (assuming that you’re not in a time-is-of-the-essence situation regarding the issue at hand).

Step 3. The “What”: Manage Your Risks

Your Objective: Get clear about whether your main objective is to raise awareness about an issue or to require that action be taken to correct it.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Cheryl, as always it was a pleasure to collaborate with you on this column. I am so glad you included what Harry Lay and Neal Jensen said about Integrity Oaths. Both Hugh Ballou and I resonate more with the word “Covenant” than “Oath,” but the intention matters far more than the word choice. And in line with what you mentioned, Cheryl, I too recommend Integrity Oaths/Covenants that are not only signed but that include an agreement that is worded specifically enough so both the “deliverables providers” and the “deliverables receivers” feel confident that all are on the same page about what’s being agreed to. In addition, there are legal agreements and there are collaboration agreements. Legal agreements are written with legal purposes in mind. Collaboration agreements are written with maximizing mutual success in mind. It’s not that one type of agreement is right and the other is wrong. They’re simply different (though of overlapping) because they meet different purposes. Cheryl, might it be worthwhile for us to describe the key ingredients in collaboration agreements in a future column?

Nothing to forgive, Cheryl. I find nothing wrong with the word “oath;” it’s just that I personally prefer the connotations of the word “covenant” more. And yes, I think it would be great if Hugh Ballou would weigh in on this.

Great topic, Cheryl. Certainly every reader will nod in agreement considering their own experiences. This would be an excellent check-list for anyone to follow as they decide what to do and if they should at all. I have considerable experience dealing with this as an employee, manager, and consultant. I especially like the How section, as this is usually done all wrong. I agree that malicious intent is rare and I always assume positive intent until and unless proven otherwise. However, it does occur at times so we can’t dismiss it entirely; I’ve dealt with that before! I was glad to see framing listed there. It’s an essential skill, and it can be learned. If I can add my perspective there, it’s this: deal with only observable behavior, and do not try to explain why someone did what they did. It’s so tempting to say, “Well, Joe did that because he’s obviously a passive-aggressive personality,” or “It’s clear she’s acting out an unhappy childhood,” or “I hear he’s having marital difficulties” and so forth. We simply cannot know another’s motive, and we cannot climb inside their head to find out. People love to do it, though, and love to hear such stuff; look at how popular psycho-biography is (Here’s not only what he did, but why he did it!). It takes the emotion out of it and minimizes ulterior motives being ascribed to you for bringing the whole thing up. Dr. Gruber also hits an essential point with what he calls emotional self-interest. One of the most effective ways to influence anyone about anything is to show or even just hint at how they will personally benefit from the action you propose. So, here’s the problem, the behavior I’ve observed, and the effect it has on the organization and on you. I’ve bookmarked this article, thanks for sharing these ideas.